Tucker Convertible on Ebay

[Barry Wolk]

These people have a right to their doubts. However, they also have an obligation to join the Convertible site and review the documentation presented. Short of that they are doing a disservice to the car they love so much.

I joined this site because I went through and am still going through questions of authenticity on my '56 Continental Mark II convertible. I too, was accused of fabricating evidence about my car until I found a letter in Ford's own files that explained why my car was made into a convertible from a stock coupe.

I too, had my car on display at Keels and Wheels in 2004 where it took a Best of Class. I met with many of the detractors and physically showed them that my car had been coach built. Some walked away convinced, and some didn't. That's what I would suggest the detractors here do. Make an informed statement based on physically being in the presence of the car. Someone needs to make the trip. This car certainly seems like the Holy Grail of Tucker fans.

We were invited back to the Keels and Wheels Concours this year, where the Tucker was shown, but shipping costs on a 5300 lb. car was outrageous. I understand that there was a Mark II convertible in the auction. It was one of the two clones made by Alan Taylor in 1994. They have been asking $295,000 for it. I wonder what the high bid was. I only bring this up because this same story, with different car names, is being told all over the world.

Shows like Keels and Wheels thrive on this kind of controversy. Bob Fuller is a genius when it comes to assembling interesting cars. I'll have to admit that his choice this year was a great one.

[Tuckerfan1053]

These people have a right to their doubts. However, they also have an obligation to join the Convertible site and review the documentation presented. Short of that they are doing a disservice to the car they love so much.

I signed up about a week ago and have yet to get "authorization" to look at the site. Kind of hard for me to look at their documentation if they won't let me.

[Randy Earle]

They authorized me in about 10 minutes the other day.

[Barry Wolk]

These people have a right to their doubts. However, they also have an obligation to join the Convertible site and review the documentation presented. Short of that they are doing a disservice to the car they love so much.

I signed up about a week ago and have yet to get "authorization" to look at the site. Kind of hard for me to look at their documentation if they won't let me.

I would suggest that you try again or look in your spam folder for their response.

[Tucker Fan 48]

I'll try to keep my response to the previous posting short. First, I've spent a lot of time on the Benchmark site looking at their so called evidence.
It's a joke. Anyone can notorize a document about anything. Second, I listened to both interviews posted on the site and what has been written
there. Justin CLEARLY uses the June 94 Tucker Topics issue as a basis that his car is real. You say we should eliminate the pictures for a moment???
The pictures prove 100% that the car is not real but somehow people should just eliminate their existance? You claim somehow the Benchmark car
is not the same car we are talking about. Many of the pictures here were compared to the Benchmark car. There are several people that looked at
buying the car long before Justin ever came along. How is it possible for a car that was photographed and DOCUMENTED to still be at the plant in
September of 1950 and DOCUMENTED to have been part of the auction in October of 1950 to be a factory convertible when the top was clearly still
on it. Should we just eliminate the pictures for a moment? There have been discussions here about the big back window car for years. The pictures of
it are not new. They were published in September of 1950. Several of the old timers here saw the car at Ezra Schlipfs after the auction. Should we
just eliminate what they saw? Should we just eliminate the magazine pictures? Should we just eliminate the auction documents? Should we just
eliminate the pictures on the Benchmark site the show damage on their car in the exact same place as the damage on #1027?

I'll have to agree with you then and admit I am wrong. If I do as you ask and eliminate all the solid and documented evidence then I have no choice
other than to agree that the car is the one and only factory "convertible" built at the Tucker plant. Eliminate the evidence. I would have never thought
of that.

[TUCKER]

Here is more of that we knew about the big back window car since a very long time ago. You can find this by Alex Tremulis in your 1960 book "the Indomitable Tin Goose" by Charles T. Pearson" also reprinted many times years later. Read the page and you will see 1057 is the big window car. Also when life took the photos in Sept. 1950 the plant was closed down and the peole in the photo were taking inventory for the October auction sale where the car was sold to Schlipf. Later I believe Schlipf sold the body along with another Tuckers and Tucker bodies he had. But please reed the page bellow.

[Tucker Fan 48]

According to the Benchmark site, (which I was just on yet again), the passage that you posted is one of the 5 points that prove that the Benchmark
car is the one and only factory built Tucker "convertible". Justin Cole says " In the book, The Indomitable Tin Goose, which is about the Tucker
Corporation, ah, number 57 is mentioned as being, ah, it's either in the experimential department or being worked on by, ah, I think it's Alex
Tremulis, which is the chief designer, or was the chief designer of the Tucker automoblies and, ah, so number 57 again was documented as being,
ah, in process when the plant closed". Cole also says that Reinhart "showed us the book, The Indomitable Tin Goose, that talks about number 57
being in the, ah, I would call it the design, I think it's the experimential or design, ah, portion of the plant, ah, when the plant closed so, we saw
what we needed to see". These are both accurate quotes from Justin Cole that he says prove his car is really a factory "convertible".

When I look at the book, I see nothing even close to that. I see a 1960 quote from Alex Tremulis that he had body #57 when the plant closed down
and "We were changing the rear window to a full wrap around and had already started to cut out openings for the re-styling job". His statement
agrees with the magazine photos from September 1950 that show body #57 in the experimential area of the plant with a large rear window in the
body. Those photos CLEARLY show body #57 located between the B10 and C10 pillars in the plant in September of 1950. That area is DOCUMENTED
as the design area. So what we have is Alex Tremulis, himself, stating that he was working on putting a window in the ROOF of #57 when the plant
closed and we have PICTURES of #57 with the big back window in the EXACT area that Tremulis was working on it in.

None of that is hearsay evidence. They didn't have photoshop back in 1950 so I doubt the pictures were faked. Alex Tremulis was interviewed many
times over the years. He seemed to love to talk about Tuckers. His statements never conflicted each other. The photos prove his statements to be
correct.

I must really be missing something because I can find in The Indomitable Tin Goose where it says number 57 was in the design department but I
can't find where it says number 57 is the one and only factory built Tucker "convertible". I can't find it anywhere in my copy and I don't see it in
the copy posted above. I guess Benchmark must have a different copy that shows that. I hope they post it on their website.

[TUCKER]

1057 was never a convertible and 1057 is still out there in Wisconsin where last seen around the late 1960s or early 1970s but now in a complete state with all the parts that got lost being enough to put a body together. If not there it will be at Gilliland. None of the parts of this 1057 body was ever used on other cars as I know of. I also have a photo from Al's place from about 10 years ago that show a diferent looking back fender hidden on the background behind other fenders and it is a Tucker Fender with no paint which looks like it was new. Maybe the fenders Alex talked about wanting to rework.

[john]

We surmise that the remnants of #57, for the most part, as seen at Ezra's, were the parts from #57, identified by the stamped numbers on panels etcetera by individuals that were there.

We further surmise that being no special # 57 parts have surfaced or have been placed on the open market since as oddities for collection, that they were bull dozed under when Ezra burried parts, cars and buildings.

We further add that our belief is that the roof was seperated from #57's body, thats why it never stood out whatsoever while at Ezra's.

Many parts etcetera were left to rust and dissolve away, there was no reason to do anything else with them but bulldoze the junk under>>>> NOBODY cared back then !!!!
The Harris Speciale, together with many other very rare automobiles suffered such fates, good thing the Harris was not burried.

There might be a slight possibility that this is all wrong, but we truly doubt it.

One thing is absolutly for sure, the Easter basket has runneth over with many eggs of different colors, shapes, numbers, photographs and bends for documentation>>
Till the next time gentleman,
John

[TUCKER]

Now the other easter egg, number 1052. Why was the roof cut off of that other car? 1052 was a test frame as I know but is that true or is it hiding something under all the panels from 1018. Can anyone get photos from 1052 and the serial numbers? Do anyone here know more about 1052? Do anyone know more about car 1052 sold by Alen?? 1052 is under "see a Tucker" shown as 1027. 1052 looks to have been a running car at one time by the way it looks which would not be 1057.

[Tucker Fan 48]

So are those pictures of the parts in this listing? This is from the Richard Kughn auction held at
Novi Expo center in Michigan, November 15th, 2002.

[TUCKER]

update on 1052 from my notes.
When Alen sold 1052 he said it was a test car or prototype which the roof was cut off in testing the frame to make it into a convertible. Alen said it was a convertible started at the factory and it was not continued. Then when he sold it it came with the blueprints available to finish this Tucker project. Maybe Alen cut the roof off himself and made up the makebelieve story since he maybe did not have enough parts to put a complete car together.

1042 fame was then sold with coul of 1055 to make a convertible 1055 that was never finished at the factory. It also came with blueprints available and it came from Alen also. 1055 was to be the one and only Tucker convertible never finished at the factory.

Alen lied two times to two other persons about buying a convertible started at the factory and now he sells 1027 with the same story and the convertible was stamped 1027 and for some reason he later restamped it with 1057 to try and get more money. If you have seen all the posts on this site you will see it had a 27 before the 57 when Alen started building the car before he had it up for sale.

Now we see Alen used the same story 3 times on 3 car parts lots but the other two persons got the cars as part lots and did not buy the story paying lots of money.

[TUCKER]

Thank you Tucker Fan. Look at this closeup now with it saying about it being a prototype and sow a convertible. It came with blueprints available to finish it!

[TUCKER]

There were nothing but like 3 doors from 1027 in the 1052 parts lot. How can you complete a 1027 from that parts lot??? All the 1027 parts are on the convertible!!

Maybe we can make a list of all the times Alen lied on something and I'm shure I can make a big list. Would you still believe what he says??

[Randy Earle]

I was telling my wife about this. She looked at me and said....are you ready?

"Randy, it's obvious they are getting it ready to sell at the Barrett/Jackson Auction!"